Introduction
One of the problems that decisions like Obergefell will cause in our churches is the dislocation that will occur between individuals who respond to such things differently. Often it is not “the thing itself,” but reactions to the thing itself that divide us. We all disapprove, but we disapprove in different ways. Some of those differences are fine, and some are the opposite of just fine.
And then, on top of that, when we have leaders who are divided on how to react, we can have a real problem. Obviously, a man who believes that homosexual marriages are possible, and are furthermore a good thing, is not qualified to lead God’s people. But the pagans have imposed this monstrosity upon us. One elder candidate thinks we should firebomb the county courthouse for registering such abominations, another thinks that it is an abomination all right, but that we have other foundational work to get done first before we attempt to rectify the abomination, and yet another elder candidate is yearning for the day when he can get out of his stuffy closet.
How can you tell the difference between the latter two?
Jeremiah told the Jews to surrender to the Babylonians, and he did this without being secretly in love with the Babylonian way. But someone else, who really was in love with the Babylonian way, might say exactly the same thing that Jeremiah said. “Yeah! What he said!”
When Paul arrived in Rome, the gladiatorial games were going in full force. This was a problem, but it was not his problem, if you know what I mean. He didn’t start a petition drive to have the games stopped, but not because they shouldn’t be stopped. He didn’t do that because he had bigger fish to fry. Everything with this kind of issue depends on where you and your disciples are headed, and how plausible it is that you are headed there.
The Issue and the Real Issue:
Suppose a candidate for elder in your church says that he believes the civil magistrate should not outlaw homosexual activity. He says that this is a “two kingdoms” issue, and that he certainly doesn’t approve of homosexual sinning, but that the magistrate does not have the obligation to impose the entire law of God—just the parts that maintain public decency and order.
Now it could be argued that brimstone falling from the sky on a city has an impact on public order, but let us leave that aside for a moment.
Moreover, he says that Christians should not resist or fight it if the magistrate goes farther and positively affirms homosexual unions with the sanction of marriage. Let the Gentiles do what Gentiles do.
But here is test case to help us determine if such a proposal is serious or not. Suppose someone says this:
“The magistrate is under no obligation to impose the entire law of God on an unbelieving populace, and should be concerned merely with the general peace and security of the society. Christians should live according to the Word of God in their own communities, and not concern themselves with whether or not unbelievers have codified their unrighteousness as manifested by the widespread acceptance of Sin X, along with their legal protections for Sin X.”
Now someone who affirms this is actually affirming the principle, and can do so without knowing what Sin X might be. But if it matters to a person what that sin is, this is probably because he is trying to get his rubber raft of personal piety through the whitewater of cultural inconsistency, and is having a rough go. He has now taken to waving his paddle in the air.
The options for Sin X are:
- Acceptance of widespread homosexual activity
- Acceptance of widespread pederasty
- Acceptance of gladiatorial blood sports
- Acceptance of racially-motivated bigotry
- Acceptance of abortion on demand
- Acceptance of chattel slavery
Now if you are a standard-issue mushified pastor, you are going to want to apply the paragraph above to those sins that the rainbow coalition is currently trumpeting, while refusing indignantly to apply to those sins that rainbow coalition rejects with detestation. In other words, the principle is not your principle at all—it is your excuse.
So when Paul arrived in Rome, that city contained more than gladiatorial games. It also contained everything else on the list—and he still gave himself to planting churches and discipling the saints. But he was playing the long game, as he told us flatly on a number of occasions.
And Some Revelatory Questions
So I said above that there is a sharp distinction to be made between someone who is surrendering to the spirit of the age, or otherwise trying to accommodate it, and someone who is simply a strategic thinker, playing the long game. Since both of them might argue that we should not firebomb the country courthouse because they are registering same sex mirages there, how can we tell the difference between the temporizer and valiant strategist?
Remember, we are talking not about church membership, but about the leadership of your congregation. You tell the difference by means of questions like the following:
- Suppose you have the results of a same sex marriage ceremony living next door to you. They are faithful members of a church that approves of such things and, as next door neighbors go, they are pleasant and neighborly enough. Are you willing to say from the pulpit that those who live in this way will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10)?
- Are you willing to say (again, in a way that people can hear) that the laws of the ideal biblical republic (which we are in the process of building) will in due time exclude and prohibit any form of marriage or civil union between members of the same sex? Such unions may be legal now, but when we are done with our work of discipling the nations, they will no longer be legal.
- And in the meantime, if you have a Christian baker, florist, or photographer in your congregation whose conscience prohibits him rendering any form of support or applause to such unions, that individual is doing the Lord’s work. Are you willing to support him with your life, fortune, and sacred honor?
A man who says that those who live in unrepented sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom, who acknowledges that the effect of the growth of the Lord’s kingdom on earth will be to inexorably outlaw all such monstrosities, and that the consciences of honest Christians who refuse to participate in celebrations of this particular vice should be consciences that are honored by the church leadership, respected by the church leadership, and defended by the church leadership, is a man who is sound on the essentials. If that man is opposed to filing a lawsuit against your local government— which just painted rainbow guns on all the cop cars—he is obviously opposed for tactical reasons, not theological reasons. This means he is within the boundaries of our confessions—even if he is wrong about the tactics, and a lawsuit is just what is called for.
the 3rd bullet point under “and some revelatory questions” seems unfinished. I think you should re-read the whole post. Not your most coherent work.
End of the third bullet point in the second set of bullet points seems to have disappeared.
>Now someone who affirms this is actually affirming the principle, and can do so without knowing what Sin X might be.
This is not anymore fair than if someone were to say to you, “If you’re going to enforce by law God’s principle X, then you must enforce God’s principle X without knowing what X is.” Just as you yourself wish to enshrine some things in law — don’t murder — but not others — don’t lust — you should allow for those with a more libertarian view of civil government the same honesty in dealing with their positions.
It is not the same thing. What principles were enforced through magistrates, by God?
I get the gist of this sentence, but I think it’s incomplete:
“And in the meantime, if you have a Christian baker, florist, or photographer in your congregation whose conscience prohibits him rendering any form of support or applause to such unions, that individual”
“Now it could be argued that brimstone falling from the sky on a city has an impact on public order, but let us leave that aside for a moment.” Has that ever happened (not including the time Lot fled Sodom before having a threesome with his daughters)? “Acceptance of chattel slavery” The founders of the Southern Baptist Convention believed wholeheartedly in the institution of chattel slavery. It’s doubtful they ever repented of this. Are they in Hell or not? Forget slavery. What about contraception? Masturbation? A passing lustful thought? “A man who says that those who live in unrepented sexual… Read more »
You can only repent of those things you believe are a sin. Which is why the gospel needs to be preached. How can they repent of sins that unless someone goes to them and tells them? You seem to be implying that making it to Heaven is contingent on a fully informed conscience as well as a perfect recollection of each and every thing one’s done to offend God (to to mention having the sense of timing to be able to repent of all of these things before dying). No. One needs to have a mind oriented to Christ. It… Read more »
All, thanks for letting me know about the incomplete thought. And I also saw that the paragraph about Sin X was not within quotation marks or indented, which was likely confusing.
Mike, I agree with you that it has to be apples to apples, crimes to crimes, sins to sins. That is what my examples show I was assuming.
Could you put a little margin on the left side? The text is right up against the edge. Makes is hard to read.
I think that many people who can accept civil gay marriage while still regarding it as sinful might have a problem with the options for Sin X. Every item other than homosexual activity and gladiatorial sports involves an unwilling victim. Pederasty, chattel slavery, racial bigotry in action, and abortion all cause either death or great harm to a person who has not consented to them. This moves them into a different category of sin, and give the civil magistrate a reason to criminalize them. Any unrepented sexual sin (including impure thoughts and taking sensuous pleasure in racy novels) will send… Read more »
Jill Smith wrote:
Jill Smith is imposing her own criteria of consent on the list. That’s clearly not the criteria God was using when He established a maximum civil capital sentence for things like adultery. We need to examine Scripture to discern God’s criteria for proper civil government.
Was Katecho smoking in the boys room during civics class? Folks like Doug Wilson are exactly who the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the Constitution.
Joe said:
Was Katecho smoking in the boys room during civics class?
There is a time when rebellion becomes prudent.
That’s dumb. No wis, just dumb.
Your position would be consistent. but then you would need to expand sin X to cover other consensual sins that you would refuse to criminalise such as polygamy, multi-party unions, adultery, fornication, bestiality, etc.
All of these are noncriminal now except for bestiality, and that taboo can be justified on a secular basis because it can cause cruelty to animals. In Canada, acts that do not cause internal damage to the animal (I am being delicate here because it is totally gross) are not illegal. Bigamy is still technically illegal but only if go through a state-recognized marriage ceremony while you are still tied to your first spouse. I tend to get frustrated in these discussions because I don’t understand whether people are thinking of some future time when all these acts will be… Read more »
Jill, this is trying to assess whether one is principled or is appealing to principles despite being carried along by the spirit of the age. That is why the hypotheticals are useful.
Doug is talking post-millennial. One could potentially argue whether bringing in some laws in the context of a secular democracy is the wisest move.
Gay sex was illegal very recently in many places (still kinda is, but after the Lawrence decision it’s pure formality). These laws were never massively enforced, however they still served a purpose. It made “sexual orientation” (I hate this whole taxonomy, but we are stuck with it) a category that could not be offered legal protection because the defining feature was illegal. It also gave employers and property owners a pretext to exclude people who had a deleterious impact on their culture. If there was a referendum in north Dakota about making gay sex illegal it might have a decent… Read more »
It is a weak argument to imply that there is no harm in homosexual relationships just because they occur between consenting adults. There is much harm, though often unadmitted or unrecognized by the masses. Because there is harm, to both the individuals and to society, God has outlawed the practice.
Thank you. I agree.
I wouldn’t argue that there is no harm. There is harm caused by any sinful practice. My point is that, although God has clearly outlawed it, the criminal law under our system of government must serve a secular purpose. When the Supreme Court struck down laws against homosexual conduct, they did not find a compelling secular reason. They are not entitled to consider issues such as harm to the bodies and souls of those who engage in consensual sexual relationships. The damage to society must be deemed so great that it outweighs the liberty of the individual, and it takes… Read more »
Our courts are more than willing to uphold the most ridiculous things, banning plastic grocery bags for instance. So I’m afraid that your argument doesn’t really hold water. Our courts are all about revoking consent.
But banning plastic bags isn’t part of the criminal law. And if a plastic bag ordinance ever made it to the Supreme Court, I am not sure how they would rule.
But the criminal law is different. Can you think of a Supreme Court criminal law decision which removes freedom from the average person?
All criminal law decisions are about removing freedom from individuals. That is the whole point of the law.
Well, I can see that is one way of looking at it, but I think the more usual view would be that (1) criminal laws in themselves are intended to protect people from the wicked who would do them harm, and (2) court decisions about the criminal law are intended to ensure its compliance with the constitution. A law that punishes me for burning my neighbor’s house down is technically removing my freedom, but it is more about protecting my neighbor (and society in general) from arson. But I want to get back to the main issue. I said that… Read more »
Have you read the history behind Lawrence v. Texas? It’s quite the soap opera. Alcoholics, a 3 way love spat in which one guy calls the cops to set up the other two other by falsely reporting a dangerous black man with a gun in the apartment. It’s really a miracle nobody got shot.
Yes, all laws remove freedom from individuals, so yes,it is okay to ban gay sex.
Does that mean that you would want gay people to go to prison for having gay sex? I have read the story; it was pretty sordid. But I still can’t understand how we are justified in sending people to prison for having the kind of sex we don’t like. How is what people do in private any of my business? If the two ladies who live next door are having a physical relationship, how is this hurting me? Why should I have any say about what they do behind closed doors? Looking at the larger picture, many Christians believe that… Read more »
“How is what people do in private any of my business? ” If they were actually doing it in private, than there would be no crime to even ponder, would there? They are out and loud, not behind closed doors. As to unrepentant gays going to hell forever, I’m not so sure how that all plays out, but it does seem rather unloving to say, “well, let’s just help you make the best of your short trip to hell.” Have all the sex you want, make it your very identity, dress up as debauched as you want for pride parades,… Read more »
I want to make sure I understand you because this is a difficult issue. You think that only gay sex that occurs in public should be illegal? And would you, in fact, send gay people to prison for having gay sex? I don’t think you understood what I meant. Hell is a distinct possibility for all of us, not just for the gays. As a Catholic, I believe that anyone who dies unrepentant in a state of deadly sin does not have good prospects for the afterlife–though God’s mercy is great and only He knows. Adultery and pornography and abusing… Read more »
“You think that only gay sex that occurs in public should be illegal?”
I’m saying that in order for gay sex to come to the attention of the authorities, there has to be witnesses, public activity, a complainant, something.
“There has to be witnesses, public activity, a complainant, something.” Years ago, Massachusetts had a cohabitation statute that made it illegal for people to live together without being married. The last time criminal charges were actually brought under the law was around 1970 or so, and the last time before that had been in the 1920s. When the case came to court, the judge asked, “May I ask how the defendants’ living situation came to the attention of the authorities?” to which the response was, “The girl’s mother filed a complaint.” To which the judge responded, “Tell the girl’s mother… Read more »
I have read some Protestant writings which say that gay people are damned because they are reprobates, or that if they fall back into sin, it is proof that they are not along the Elect. I have read others who say that to be saved, the homosexual must stop ever having gay feelings and must become a manly man. Or a girly girl. But even the nicest, gentlest Protestants of this type appear to believe that gays are usually damned unless they have a total conversion and never slip again. All nonsense. The idea that sodomy is just another sin… Read more »
Jill, your questions are unfortunately all too common in modern Christianity. Why are you even asking these questions? Is God’s Law perfect or not? Are we able to improve upon His Law? God does not criminalize murder because of some notion of “harm to another person.” He makes perfect Laws as a reflection of His nature, to show us how far we fall from that nature, to show us our need for Christ…and to give our civil magistrates a method for fair and just dealings with men. We criminalize murder (correctly) because we are imitating God’s perfect Law. We give… Read more »
Well, it is certainly true that I would recoil emotionally from any suggestion that we execute gays in accordance with Old Testament law. But that isn’t my main point–which is that we live in a secular republic. When legislators debate whether to criminalize or decriminalize specific conduct, they are required to provide secular reasons. I understand that if we lived in a Christian republic, the law contained in the Old Testament would replace the secular law. But we are not there yet. So, when people want our current law to be based on scriptural law, they need to produce secular… Read more »
Jill Smith wrote: This is simply how it is right now. Jill has been corrected on this cop out before. We are perfectly aware of “how it is right now”, which is why we are discussing how to change it. Caleb and Joshua knew how it was when they spied out the land of Canaan. The difference between them and Israel was that they believed God. “How it is right now”, is not an argument for how it ought to be. Jill and Krychek_2 need to come to terms with this at some point. Jill Smith wrote: I understand that… Read more »
“Looking at the larger picture, many Christians believe that unrepentant gays will go to hell forever. Why on earth would we want to make them miserable here as well?” Jilly, Briefly, most Christians (at least the ones who have thought through this – I can really only speak for myself) aren’t motivated to fence sexuality out of malice. They (we) believe that sexual expressions outside of those given as good by God are damaging to individuals and to society. Turning someone over to their sin is abandoning them to brokenness. Vile morals also spread as a contagion, by allowing sexual… Read more »
I know you don’t like the concept of sexual orientation much (and I have come to agree that it is certainly more fluid than I once believed, especially in women and young people), but take, for the sake of argument, a man who has from his youth felt only single sex attraction. My church, as you know, would say that this orientation is disordered but is not in itself sinful because attractions are beyond our conscious control. So the sin lies in indulging the attraction (fantasizing about it, using porn, or actually acting on it). Is your argument that criminalizing… Read more »
“I know you don’t like the concept of sexual orientation much” Its a pet peeve of mine, sorry for beating a dead horse. But a passing acquaintance with the history of human sexuality shows that our modern categories are moral fictions, they may be useful as long as we don’t regard them as absolutes, or as having a grounding in human nature. Our modern categories are probably due to a combination of tight Victorian structures, and a desire for a pretext to legitimacy. Indeed, the categories have about outlived their usefulness, you are hearing more and more about “non-binary” gender… Read more »
You write: “You have bought the argument that there are all of these people whose only chance to have affection, love, and belonging is in a gay relationship. I think gay relationships harm the people involved and damage society.” Surely, though, sham marriages between gay men and straight women (or vice-versa) harm the straight spouse too. That can’t *possibly* be a good time for anyone. In fact, I know it’s not; my dad’s first wife left him for another woman, and the marriage was an awful one — a *lot* of pain and suffering on his end, stretching out over… Read more »
I think what you describe is why Catholics with a lifelong same sex attraction are encouraged to pursue celibacy. In fact, I doubt that any priest would preside over the wedding of a would-be spouse who says “I feel no attraction to the opposite sex and I never have, but I want to get married in the hope of finding a cure for my condition.”
Out of curiosity, what if the potential spouse said, “… but I want to get married in the hopes of having a biological family?” what’s your gut instinct about what a priest would/should say to that?
My instinct is that a priest would say no. Wanting a child is not a reason in the absence of a capability for true, exclusive marital love.
Hey, DAL. You have read into my argument a (supposed) consequent that I don’t affirm. I do no think that people should marry anyone that they aren’t sexually interested in. I dont think marriage is the only avenue for love, affection or belonging. There is a lot more to say on this, maybe later.
Edited to include: I don’t think marriage should be considered a “cure” for any sort of sin, it may help a bit with some forms of lust, but that should be a consideration at the outset.
Yeah, I kinda *thought* I might be doing that, hence the P.S. Like I said — baggage. Thanks for being chill about it!
I think you are probably right. I can see it as disordered and immoral in the sense that all sexual activity that doesn’t occur between husband and wife for the purpose of having children is immoral. But two women kissing in the way that straight people kiss? I think it is kind of gross (to be immature about it for the moment), but I just can’t see it as something to put people in prison for. Let alone kill them.
Unless, of course, the sexual activity involves prostitution (with consenting adults, I might add). What argument would a local magistrate give for prostitution being illegal?
I’m not convinced prostitution should be illegal, but here’s the argument: The overwhelming majority of prostitutes became prostitutes because of drugs, abuse (both physical and sexual), or lack of other real options. No little girl ever said, “When I grow up, I want to be a street walker”; if she’s hooking, it’s usually because something catastrophic happened to her along the way. So the issue is not the morality per se of sex for money; the issue is protecting vulnerable people from exploitation. As we do by prohibiting or regulating numerous kinds of other exchanges when one party is more… Read more »
As soon as Melody raised that very good point, I said uh-oh to myself. The trouble with the argument you present is that it could be applied to adult gays as well. You could argue that a 19-year-old gay man, who was sexually abused in childhood, deserves to be protected from exploitation from a 30-year-old gay man who is offering him sex and a room for the night. Once we accept using the law to save adults from exploitation and from their own poor choices, what happens to individual liberty? I think you could argue against solicitation for prostitution in… Read more »
Except that most gay men are not gay because of sexual abuse. And that aside, some types of exploitation have more serious consequences, so it’s not a bright line, it’s more of a continuum. And is the 19-year-old gay man really that different from a homeless 19 year old girl who gets taken in — and taken advantage of — by a 30 year old male? In her case the answer is clear: She is an adult and she has the right to decide whether to move in with him or not. Ultimately, I agree with your underlying point, which… Read more »
Paul suggests your hypothetical elder in 1 Corinthians. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?… Read more »
I need my pastors, elders, friends to just stand in the gospel. That means sin stays sin, wrong stays wrong, evil stays evil. It’s a real betrayal when they drop the ball and I’ve grown rather inpatient about it. There’s a pattern that tends to play out, Darwin will trump Genesis, divorce is always okay, homosexuality does no harm, gay marriage is acceptable, there are many paths to the Father…..and now we must remove Jesus Christ’s name so as not to offend anyone.
I agree that pastors should be defending the gospel. But you realize that there are a lot of sincere Christians who have no trouble reconciling Darwin with Genesis. And, in a secular, multifaith society, we can have our Lord’s name but we also have to then be willing to have the signs and symbols of other religions. We would have to return to being a truly Christian nation before we could succeed in getting Christian legislation about divorce and gay marriage.
Jill, I think part of the point P. Wilson was making is that there is a great temptation for us to capitulate to the spirit of the age and say that something is okay because if we don’t, we get labeled ignorant, superstitious, backwards, a hater, a bigot, or worse. We need to stand firm in God’s word as revealed. So if someone claims that they believe God’s word agrees 100% with the secular culture, I question their exegesis and their courage. I personally believe that Darwinianism makes no sense to explain the origin of life and species, and think… Read more »
And, in a secular, multifaith society, we can have our Lord’s name but we also have to then be willing to have the signs and symbols of other religions. ”
We do not. We are a Christian nation already. We are under no obligation to embrace other religions, not even in so called “secular society.” Secular is kind of a funny word in this context, rooted in “temporary,” “for a generation,” and “worldly.”
Well, I understand that people don’t like it, but it is really and truly the law. That was why Judge Moore had to have the statue of the Ten Commandments removed from his courthouse even in a state as Christian as Alabama. Of course, the law only governs religious displays on public property. Sometimes the court makes an exception for a religious symbol that is primarily historical and is not seen as endorsing Christianity. But the state may not put up any symbol that appears to endorse one particular religion or to favor one over another. That is why some… Read more »
“I want the government to treat everyone even-handedly, regardless of the individual’s religious beliefs.”
Than you’re going to want a government heavily influenced by Christian values. It is Christian values that give us the morality that suggests government ought to treat everyone even handedly. You don’t see that in Islamic countries of communist countries or anywhere but the West, where our governments our heavily influenced and kept in check by Christians with values. If you take that away you will also take away that so called even handedness or fairness you speak of.
Yes, of course,I want to see Christian values such as justice, mercy, and tolerance influencing our government. I like to see legislators who are good Christians too!
“It is Christian values that gave us the morality that suggests government ought to treat everyone even handedly.” That’s funny. A now deceased friend of mine went to public schools in the 1930s, at a time when publicly school children recited the Lord’s prayer every morning. He was Catholic and refused to recite the last line of the Protestant version of the Lord’s prayer, which was the version used in that school. So, every day, because he refused to recite that last line, he was sent to the principal’s office to be paddled. His parents complained repeatedly, to no avail,… Read more »
How is your example of a school not exercising Christian values relevant? MeMe’s statements was not that everything any Christian ever did promoted just government.
Jane, when Christians have exercised political power, the values they have shown to people who don’t share their world view have only rarely been even handed or fair. We can quibble over what Christian values theoretically ought to be, but there’s no real historical doubt that giving Christianity political power usually results in much misery for those not of the faith, or even for those of a different sect within Christianity. That school is far more representative of how theocrats with power behave than not. You have the blessing of having lived most of your life in a country that,… Read more »
Actually the real difference between Saudi Arabia and the US is Jesus Christ. As flawed and imperfect as Christians are, we worship a God of sacrificial love who paid the price in full for our sin. We know of grace and mercy. Islam and the monarchy, have no understanding of those concepts, it is not a part of their worldview. They must earn their place under their own power, primarily by displaying their own complete lack of mercy or compassion. That is critical difference that people far wiser than me have taken note of. Whether one is a believer or… Read more »
No, the difference between Saudi Arabia and the United States is that their theocrats have political power and ours don’t. Geneva was a miserable place to live when John Calvin was running it. So was Massachusetts under the Puritans. And that’s before we get to real atrocities like the Inquisition and the genocide of Native Americans. History has repeatedly shown that no religion can be trusted with political power.
Thank you for reminding us of the horrific history of “Christian” government. It’s appalling that so many commenters are either ignorant of that history or see nothing wrong with it. I wonder how many of these folks would want a return to OT jurisprudence.
People have trouble understanding this because they picture a theocracy as being run by Christians like themselves. They don’t imagine what it would be like to live under a government led by Fred Phelps.
Or Douglas Wilson, or Joe Blow, or Jill Smith.
It would look very Canadian! Lots of endless panel debates.
We have to distinguish between a government made up of many Christians and a Christian government. I think people aren’t necessarily making the distinction between the two.
Jill, that’s not just sad; it’s scary. They must have been with Katecho smoking in the bathroom during civics class. I wish someone could point out one example of a theocracy that worked (The Vatican doesn’t count).
“I wish someone could point out just one example of a theocracy that worked.” That sounds like a fun challenge! How are we defining “theocracy” and “working,” though? I ask because a *lot* of societies have organized themselves on the god-king model, and some of them were very successful for a very long time. But very few of them had the heresy-hunting and suppression of religious alternatives that we associate with theocracy. OTOH, medieval Europe *did* have both those things (and ask the Albigensians if you don’t believe me); but we wouldn’t describe medieval rulers as being subordinate to the… Read more »
Spot on, ME!
Post-Mill-Essentials: Filing my complaint in public in an attempt to bring you back to reason. Love your work Pastor Wilson.